December 2004 - enum-wg - mailman.ripe.net

AW: AW: [enum-wg] COCOM & ENUM ...
by Stastny Richard 14 Dec '04

14 Dec '04

Jim, I fully agree what you said about "private" (intranet) trees and that ONE public "silver" tree makes sense (and this is BTW also what ETSI is after) - but I just cannot believe that it will happen. At least not at the beginning, considering the mistrust between operators - maybe later when they have learned a lesson - and then it may be too late. I also agree with Lawrence in the other e-mail that an end-user device will never be able to query the carrier ENUM trees, and if then they will not be able to use the information they get, you just need to point to a border element requiring authentication. -richard ________________________________ Von: Jim Reid [mailto:jim@rfc1035.com] Gesendet: Di 14.12.2004 11:15 An: Stastny Richard Cc: Marco bernardi; Richard Shockey; Andrzej Bartosiewicz; Carsten Schiefner; enum-wg(a)ripe.net Betreff: Re: AW: [enum-wg] COCOM & ENUM ... >>>>> "Richard" == Stastny Richard <Richard.Stastny(a)oefeg.at> writes: Richard> I fully agree and this is one of the problems I see by Richard> introducing carrier E**M via a backdoor in e164.arpa. If Richard> I am a carrier, especially a carrier acting on an Richard> international basis, I want to implement routing Richard> mechanisms within my network and with other networks Richard> (peers) without having to go to a NRA begging first to Richard> opt-in in e164.arpa and second to behave according to Richard> various and different national rules. Richard, these points are undoubtedly true. However they have nothing whatsoever to do with the choice of domain name for carrier ENUM. So far, nobody has presented any compelling reason why another domain name is needed for carrier ENUM. [Perhaps that discussion is going on behind closed doors at ETSI or somewhere like that.] Sure, carrier ENUM shouldn't be in the public e164.arpa tree. This doesn't stop an operator from creating their own private e164.arpa tree, populating that with whatever it likes and then making sure the applications on the operator's net queries the private tree rather than the public one. This setup is known as split DNS and is very common. Most large companies do this. What we see on the internet for bt.com (say) will be very different from what someone inside the BT network sees. What *is* important is that there's a single domain name and a single, consistent name space. Many of the applications and services -- eg VoIP and SIP -- that will be used by telcos will also be used on the public internet. Suppose I'm developing or selling and supporting some ENUM-aware SIP application. I don't want to have the complexity and expense of needing to configure it to do ENUM-like lookups in foobar.at if the box lives in Telekom Austria's net today or vf.enum.egpp.net if that's where Vodafone's chosen to anchor its carrier ENUM tree this week. And as for an ENUM-aware SIP client in a mobile phone that roams between operators... Or flips between 802.11 and GPRS nets... Richard> A carrier E**M implementation does not need a tier 0 and Richard> tier 1, and it is questionable if it needs a tier 2. It Richard> needs a centralisized database operated by someone, and Richard> who this is will be decided by the community as will be Richard> the other rules. The Tier-N jargon is probably inappropriate. However the roles might not be. And I'm not sure a centralised database for carrier ENUM is viable. It has obvious attractions: carriers sharing a common infrastructure for example. OTOH, it brings problems too. Figuring out who operates that infrastructure and how it gets paid for will be entertaining. A centralised database could well mean telcos expose their customer and call routing data to each other. Which is unlikely to get much acceptance.

1 0

AW: [enum-wg] COCOM & ENUM ...
by Stastny Richard 14 Dec '04

14 Dec '04

I fully agree and this is one of the problems I see by introducing carrier E**M via a backdoor in e164.arpa. If I am a carrier, especially a carrier acting on an international basis, I want to implement routing mechanisms within my network and with other networks (peers) without having to go to a NRA begging first to opt-in in e164.arpa and second to behave according to various and different national rules. A carrier E**M implementation does not need a tier 0 and tier 1, and it is questionable if it needs a tier 2. It needs a centralisized database operated by someone, and who this is will be decided by the community as will be the other rules. This is exactly the reason why no silver tree will exist in the near future -richard ________________________________ Von: enum-wg-admin(a)ripe.net im Auftrag von Marco bernardi Gesendet: Mo 13.12.2004 08:38 An: Jim Reid; Stastny Richard; Richard Shockey Cc: Andrzej Bartosiewicz; Carsten Schiefner; enum-wg(a)ripe.net Betreff: Re: [enum-wg] COCOM & ENUM ... The probem I see is that COCOM should be not involved in any Carrier ENUM discussion. This may create some "dangerous" confusion on the role of EC and governments on carrier ENUM marco ----- Original Message ----- From: "Richard Shockey" <richard(a)shockey.us> To: "Jim Reid" <jim(a)rfc1035.com>; "Stastny Richard" <Richard.Stastny(a)oefeg.at> Cc: "Andrzej Bartosiewicz" <andrzejb(a)nask.pl>; "Carsten Schiefner" <enumvoipsip.cs(a)schiefner.de>; <enum-wg(a)ripe.net> Sent: Sunday, December 12, 2004 5:00 PM Subject: Re: [enum-wg] COCOM & ENUM ... > At 04:03 AM 12/12/2004, Jim Reid wrote: > > > >>>>> "Richard" == Stastny Richard <Richard.Stastny(a)oefeg.at> writes: > > > > Richard> There is only one "minor" problem with the implementation > > Richard> in Poland: It is Carrier E**M in e164.arpa > > > >And the problem is......? IMO the only potential problem with this is > >that private data could be made public through the DNS. > > exactly .. and BTW this is now the #1 topic of discussion within CC 1 > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > Richard Shockey, Senior Manager, Strategic Technology Initiatives > NeuStar Inc. > 46000 Center Oak Plaza - Sterling, VA 20166 > sip:rshockey(at)iptel.org sip:57141@fwd.pulver.com > ENUM +87810-13313-31331 > PSTN Office +1 571.434.5651 PSTN Mobile: +1 703.593.2683, Fax: +1 815.333.1237 > <mailto:richard(at)shockey.us> or <mailto:richard.shockey(at)neustar.biz> > <http://www.neustar.biz> ; <http://www.enum.org> > <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< >

1 0

Re: [enum-wg] COCOM & ENUM ...
by Jim Reid 13 Dec '04

13 Dec '04

>>>>> "Richard" == Richard Shockey <richard(a)shockey.us> writes: Richard> "I'm shocked shocked .. telecos do not want to enable Richard> VoIP or LNP! :-) " Other earth-shattering revelations: Investigators have proven the Pope is definitely a Catholic. Bears defecate in the woods. Elvis is dead. Though I'm not too sure about the last of these: it was announced on some web site.

1 0

Re: [enum-wg] WG: Telephone Number assined to IP telephony in Italy?
by Stastny Richard 13 Dec '04

13 Dec '04

Francesco Thank you very much for the quick response -richard ________________________________ Von: Francesco Bernabei [mailto:f.bernabei@agcom.it] Gesendet: Mo 13.12.2004 15:21 An: Stastny Richard; enum-wg(a)ripe.net; i.seki(a)hco.ntt.co.jp Betreff: Re: [enum-wg] WG: Telephone Number assined to IP telephony in Italy? Hi, The Italian numbering plan (in Italian) is contained in http://www.agcom.it/provv/d_09_03_CIR.htm. There in not any number range reserved for IP Telephony. The Italian NRA has established a group to study the VoIP issues and the work is going on. Best Regards Francesco Bernabei Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni Servizio per le Tecnologie Centro Direzionale, Isola B5 80143 Napoli Tel.: 081.7507.450 Fax.: 081.7507.621 e-mail: f.bernabei(a)agcom.it ----- Original Message ----- From: "Stastny Richard" <Richard.Stastny(a)oefeg.at> To: <enum-wg(a)ripe.net> Cc: <i.seki(a)hco.ntt.co.jp> Sent: Monday, December 13, 2004 1:15 PM Subject: [enum-wg] WG: Telephone Number assined to IP telephony in Italy? Hi folks, anybody out there who could help answer Ichiro's question? -richard ________________________________ Von: Ichiro SEKI [mailto:i.seki@hco.ntt.co.jp] Gesendet: Mo 13.12.2004 09:38 An: Stastny Richard Betreff: Telephone Number assined to IP telephony in Italy? Dear Mr.Stastny Richard, Hi. This is Ichiro SEKI of NTT from Tokyo, Japan. I hope you are doing fine. Today I am emailing you if you have any information about numbering scheme in Italy. I have heard that there are a sort of numbers that are(/will be) assigned to IP telephony there, but we do not have any information about it. (We found Italian Administration Home Page, but we could not find any definition of those numbers.) If time allows, would you please let us know if you have any information (or location(URL) of number, a person of contact, etc.) about the number. Thank you very much in advance, Ichiro SEKI, NTT i.seki(a)hco.ntt.co.jp

1 0

WG: Telephone Number assined to IP telephony in Italy?
by Stastny Richard 13 Dec '04

13 Dec '04

Hi folks, anybody out there who could help answer Ichiro's question? -richard ________________________________ Von: Ichiro SEKI [mailto:i.seki@hco.ntt.co.jp] Gesendet: Mo 13.12.2004 09:38 An: Stastny Richard Betreff: Telephone Number assined to IP telephony in Italy? Dear Mr.Stastny Richard, Hi. This is Ichiro SEKI of NTT from Tokyo, Japan. I hope you are doing fine. Today I am emailing you if you have any information about numbering scheme in Italy. I have heard that there are a sort of numbers that are(/will be) assigned to IP telephony there, but we do not have any information about it. (We found Italian Administration Home Page, but we could not find any definition of those numbers.) If time allows, would you please let us know if you have any information (or location(URL) of number, a person of contact, etc.) about the number. Thank you very much in advance, Ichiro SEKI, NTT i.seki(a)hco.ntt.co.jp

2 1

AW: [enum-wg] COCOM & ENUM ...
by Stastny Richard 13 Dec '04

13 Dec '04

>For example some of our ISP (and acting as ".pl" Registrars too) are >interested in ENUM domains registration (for VoIP services) but they MUST go >through TSPs. And telcos are not interested to start ENUM domains >registration... (they are also slowing down the NP implementation, so nobody >expects special interest in ENUM). Ha! This was exactly the reason why ETSI decided two years ago in ETSI TS 102 051 "ENUM Administration in Europe" that there should be an alternative way to get ENUM delegations if your TSP will not do it. The possibility to port your number to a TSP providing ENUM was NOT considered a proper alternative. One does not need to be a fortune teller to anticipate this problem ;-) -richard ________________________________ Von: Andrzej Bartosiewicz [mailto:andrzejb@nask.pl] Gesendet: Mo 13.12.2004 10:53 An: Richard Shockey Cc: Conroy, Lawrence (SMTP); Jim Reid; Stastny Richard; Carsten Schiefner; enum-wg(a)ripe.net Betreff: Re: [enum-wg] COCOM & ENUM ... Richard, > This IMHO will cause Poland a problem over time as ISP who want to sell > advanced services then realize they have to go through the incumbent to get > registrations processed. But this is as we all know is a national matter > and seeing how Poland deals with this will be very interesting to watch. Are you a fortune-teller? We already have this problem! For example some of our ISP (and acting as ".pl" Registrars too) are interested in ENUM domains registration (for VoIP services) but they MUST go through TSPs. And telcos are not interested to start ENUM domains registration... (they are also slowing down the NP implementation, so nobody expects special interest in ENUM). > Authentication is not hard if your country has independent databases that > can confirm the number holder. North America will not have that problem. We do not have the independent database in Poland. > Or they could use existing LNP databases ... ( ok that sounds really self > serving ) > > Note here 70% of US consumers who switch to Cable Based VoIP telephony > actually port their primary number. In Poland we have NP only in the Law (since July 2004), not in operation :( Andrzej.

3 3

Re: [enum-wg] COCOM & ENUM ...
by Stastny Richard 13 Dec '04

13 Dec '04

>IMO the only potential problem with this is >that private data could be made public through the DNS. He Jim, not again this one. This is exactly the reason why ENUM is end-user opt-in. BTW, in some countries there exists already a database (in this case opt-out) where even the names and addresses of telephone subscribers are stored - it is called the "public phone directory" Of course, because of the opt-in/opt-out feature you may not use these directories for call routing -richard ________________________________ Von: Jim Reid [mailto:jim@rfc1035.com] Gesendet: So 12.12.2004 10:03 An: Stastny Richard Cc: Andrzej Bartosiewicz; Carsten Schiefner; enum-wg(a)ripe.net Betreff: Re: [enum-wg] COCOM & ENUM ... >>>>> "Richard" == Stastny Richard <Richard.Stastny(a)oefeg.at> writes: Richard> There is only one "minor" problem with the implementation Richard> in Poland: It is Carrier E**M in e164.arpa And the problem is......? IMO the only potential problem with this is that private data could be made public through the DNS.

1 0

RE: [enum-wg] COCOM & ENUM ...
by Lothar Reith 13 Dec '04

13 Dec '04

Question to the friends in Poland - does "Access to the production system" mean read access or write access or both ? My question was related to my assumption and initial understanding, that all access was restricted to polish TSPs, like in a Carrier-E**M System my understanding is that ALL ACCESS is limited to participating Carriers. I would definitely question compliance to EU regulation if ALL ACCESS (incl. READ access) was limited to polish TSPs. To the further reaching question raised by Richard: no comment Lothar -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: Stastny Richard [mailto:Richard.Stastny@oefeg.at] Gesendet: Montag, 13. Dezember 2004 10:00 An: Reith, Lothar [HAHN:NGD:EXCH]; Andrzej Bartosiewicz; Carsten Schiefner Cc: enum-wg(a)ripe.net Betreff: RE: [enum-wg] COCOM & ENUM ... Good question. BTW: I ask myself the same question regarding the recent regulations in Germany that only providers in located in Germany may get numbers ;-) -richard _____ From: Lothar Reith [mailto:lothar.reith@nortelnetworks.com] Sent: Monday, December 13, 2004 9:55 AM To: Stastny Richard; 'Andrzej Bartosiewicz'; 'Carsten Schiefner' Cc: 'enum-wg(a)ripe.net' Subject: AW: [enum-wg] COCOM & ENUM ... A problem may be in the formulation: "Every TSP in Poland". Is that in compliance with EU regulations for fair cross-border competition ? Lothar -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: enum-wg-admin(a)ripe.net [mailto:enum-wg-admin@ripe.net <mailto:enum-wg-admin@ripe.net> ] Gesendet: Samstag, 11. Dezember 2004 18:28 An: Andrzej Bartosiewicz; Carsten Schiefner Cc: enum-wg(a)ripe.net Betreff: Re: [enum-wg] COCOM & ENUM ... >BTW: Access to the production system is restricted to the TSPs with >officially assigned numering blocks by "Office of Telecommunications >and Post Regulation" in Poland. There is only one "minor" problem with the implementation in Poland: It is Carrier E**M in e164.arpa -richard ________________________________ Von: enum-wg-admin(a)ripe.net im Auftrag von Andrzej Bartosiewicz Gesendet: Sa 11.12.2004 16:55 An: Carsten Schiefner Cc: enum-wg(a)ripe.net Betreff: Re: [enum-wg] COCOM & ENUM ... Carsten, The answer is: Yes. We have switched over to production 6 months ago. You missed my presentation in Sophia Antipolis... :) Every TSP in Poland with assigned numbering block may sign the contract with NASK and start the registration of ENUM domain names in 8.4.e164.arpa (5 EURO/year). BTW: Access to the production system is restricted to the TSPs with officially assigned numering blocks by "Office of Telecommunications and Post Regulation" in Poland. We also have the "testing" system, so everybody (not only TSPs) can test the full functionality. The only difference is that we do not export domain names to zone file from the "testing" system. Andrzej. On Fri, 10 Dec 2004, Carsten Schiefner wrote: > Hi Andrzej, > > thanks for the link - on p. 4 it reads: "Production registry launch: > May 19, 2004". > > Did I completely miss a according announcement on all of my ENUM > related lists (and there are some! ;-) or did NASK switch over to > production in absolute silence? > > Best, > > -C. > >

2 1

AW: [enum-wg] COCOM & ENUM ...
by Lothar Reith 13 Dec '04

13 Dec '04

A problem may be in the formulation: "Every TSP in Poland". Is that in compliance with EU regulations for fair cross-border competition ? Lothar -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: enum-wg-admin(a)ripe.net [mailto:enum-wg-admin@ripe.net] Gesendet: Samstag, 11. Dezember 2004 18:28 An: Andrzej Bartosiewicz; Carsten Schiefner Cc: enum-wg(a)ripe.net Betreff: Re: [enum-wg] COCOM & ENUM ... >BTW: Access to the production system is restricted to the TSPs with >officially assigned numering blocks by "Office of Telecommunications >and Post Regulation" in Poland. There is only one "minor" problem with the implementation in Poland: It is Carrier E**M in e164.arpa -richard ________________________________ Von: enum-wg-admin(a)ripe.net im Auftrag von Andrzej Bartosiewicz Gesendet: Sa 11.12.2004 16:55 An: Carsten Schiefner Cc: enum-wg(a)ripe.net Betreff: Re: [enum-wg] COCOM & ENUM ... Carsten, The answer is: Yes. We have switched over to production 6 months ago. You missed my presentation in Sophia Antipolis... :) Every TSP in Poland with assigned numbering block may sign the contract with NASK and start the registration of ENUM domain names in 8.4.e164.arpa (5 EURO/year). BTW: Access to the production system is restricted to the TSPs with officially assigned numering blocks by "Office of Telecommunications and Post Regulation" in Poland. We also have the "testing" system, so everybody (not only TSPs) can test the full functionality. The only difference is that we do not export domain names to zone file from the "testing" system. Andrzej. On Fri, 10 Dec 2004, Carsten Schiefner wrote: > Hi Andrzej, > > thanks for the link - on p. 4 it reads: "Production registry launch: > May 19, 2004". > > Did I completely miss a according announcement on all of my ENUM > related lists (and there are some! ;-) or did NASK switch over to > production in absolute silence? > > Best, > > -C. > >

2 1

RE: [enum-wg] COCOM & ENUM ...
by Stastny Richard 13 Dec '04

13 Dec '04

Good question. BTW: I ask myself the same question regarding the recent regulations in Germany that only providers in located in Germany may get numbers ;-) -richard ________________________________ From: Lothar Reith [mailto:lothar.reith@nortelnetworks.com] Sent: Monday, December 13, 2004 9:55 AM To: Stastny Richard; 'Andrzej Bartosiewicz'; 'Carsten Schiefner' Cc: 'enum-wg(a)ripe.net' Subject: AW: [enum-wg] COCOM & ENUM ... A problem may be in the formulation: "Every TSP in Poland". Is that in compliance with EU regulations for fair cross-border competition ? Lothar -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: enum-wg-admin(a)ripe.net [mailto:enum-wg-admin@ripe.net] Gesendet: Samstag, 11. Dezember 2004 18:28 An: Andrzej Bartosiewicz; Carsten Schiefner Cc: enum-wg(a)ripe.net Betreff: Re: [enum-wg] COCOM & ENUM ... >BTW: Access to the production system is restricted to the TSPs with >officially assigned numering blocks by "Office of Telecommunications >and Post Regulation" in Poland. There is only one "minor" problem with the implementation in Poland: It is Carrier E**M in e164.arpa -richard ________________________________ Von: enum-wg-admin(a)ripe.net im Auftrag von Andrzej Bartosiewicz Gesendet: Sa 11.12.2004 16:55 An: Carsten Schiefner Cc: enum-wg(a)ripe.net Betreff: Re: [enum-wg] COCOM & ENUM ... Carsten, The answer is: Yes. We have switched over to production 6 months ago. You missed my presentation in Sophia Antipolis... :) Every TSP in Poland with assigned numbering block may sign the contract with NASK and start the registration of ENUM domain names in 8.4.e164.arpa (5 EURO/year). BTW: Access to the production system is restricted to the TSPs with officially assigned numering blocks by "Office of Telecommunications and Post Regulation" in Poland. We also have the "testing" system, so everybody (not only TSPs) can test the full functionality. The only difference is that we do not export domain names to zone file from the "testing" system. Andrzej. On Fri, 10 Dec 2004, Carsten Schiefner wrote: > Hi Andrzej, > > thanks for the link - on p. 4 it reads: "Production registry launch: > May 19, 2004". > > Did I completely miss a according announcement on all of my ENUM > related lists (and there are some! ;-) or did NASK switch over to > production in absolute silence? > > Best, > > -C. > >

1 0